Maxim Mfg. Co. v. Imperial Mach. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
PAGE, Circuit Judge.
In a suit by plaintiffs appellees, herein called plaintiffs, the court held that claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 of patent No. 809,582, and claim 1 of patent No. 942,932, were valid and infringed by defendant appellant, herein called defendant.1
*80The defenses are noninfringement, equitable estoppel, laches, and invalidity. Eighty-seven patents are urged as representing anticipation in the prior art. Defendant also sets up a counterclaim, alleging unfair competition. The witnesses were before the court, and several potato-peeling tests, on behalf of defendant, were made in the presence…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Imperial Machine & Foundry Corp. v. American Machinery Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1921
- United States v. United States Brokerage & Trading Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1919
- American Fruit Machinery Co. v. Robinson Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1911
- Imperial Mach. Co. v. ReesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1919
- Imperial Machine Co. v. JacobusDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1914
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dangler v. Imperial MacH. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1926
- Imperial Machine & Foundry Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1927